Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Kent K. v. Bobby M., 110 P.3d 1013.

1357 citing documents.

Chastity S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Clear and convincing means the grounds for termination are “highly probable or reasonably certain.” -85, ¶ 25, -19 (2005).
Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Lilian G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ANALYSIS I. Standard of Review ¶17 “Parents possess a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children.” ¶ 24, (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982); Michael J. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
Heather R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Heather R. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
–82, 288, ¶¶ 7, 41 (2005) (interpreting A.R.S.
Roger W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 22, (best interests findings must be supported by preponderance of evidence).
Tiffany S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Tiffany S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8-533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Jessica C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Jessica C. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Darren G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Darren G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Billy K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Billy K. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Kristi S. v. Dcs, A.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
§ 8–533(B); ¶ 22 (2005).
Jimmy B. v. Dcs, R.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesse O., Daniel W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jimmy B. v. Dcs, R.B. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jesse O., Daniel W. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cassandra W., Michael S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cassandra W., Michael S. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicole R. v. Dean C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicole R. v. Dean C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Colene P. v. Dcs, D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mandy P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Colene P. v. Dcs, D.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Mandy P. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jean K. v. Jeremy M., J.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Jean K. v. Jeremy M., J.K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
¶12 Once a juvenile court finds that a parent is unfit, the focus shifts to the child’s best interests and the court must balance the unfit parent’s diluted interest “against the independent and often adverse interests of the child in a safe and stable home life.” ¶ 15, ( ¶ 35, ).
Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Michael Y. v. Dcs, C.Y. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brenda B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Brenda B. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arthur B. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Arthur B. v. Dcs, J.T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Decision of the Court Bobby M., ¶ 22 (2005).
Cynthia G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Cynthia G. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
In a best interests inquiry, “the interests of the parent and child diverge because the court has already found the existence of one of the statutory grounds for termination by clear and convincing evidence.” ¶ 15 (2016) ( ¶ 35 (2005)).
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin 382 P.3d 118 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Therefore, “[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply its plain language and need not engage in 5 MCLAUGHLIN v. JONES Opinion of the Court any other means of statutory interpretation.”
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Nicholaus C. v. Sarah C., I.C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
§ 8-537(B); –82, ¶ 7 (2005).
Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
Jade K. v. Loraine K. and A.K. 380 P.3d 111 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
¶¶ 24, 41, 1022 (2005); A.R.S.
Juan v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Juan v. v. Dcs Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Joseph W. v. Dcs, C.W. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
E.O. v. Michael M., Katie A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016